We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
References
Dirven, René & Fried, Vilém. 1987. By way of introduction. In Dirven, René & Fried, Vilém (eds.), Functionalism in linguistics, ix–xvii. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, Daniel E.2012. Language, the cultural tool. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, Nina. 1999. Underspecification and modularity in early syntax: A formalist perspective on language acquisition. In Moravcsik, Edith, Darnell, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick, Noonan, Michael, & Wheatley, Kathleen (eds.). Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. 1, 387–413. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, John. 2002. Bloomfield’s and Chomsky’s readings of Course de linguistique générale. In Joseph, John E. (ed.) From Whitney to Chomsky: Essays in the history of American linguistics, 133–155. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 2016. Impossible languages. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2001. The Prague School and North American functionalist approaches to syntax. Journal of Linguistics37, 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar